tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post2351180920605057195..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: New Romm Record: 11 FDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-18270709360533157782012-05-27T21:11:18.695-07:002012-05-27T21:11:18.695-07:00First anon. here. According to this, 6C is well w...First anon. here. According to this, 6C is well within reach:<br /><br />http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/climate-change-1002.html<br /><br />Of course, one would think that we'll have some sort of policy in the next 88 years. Then again, one would think that we'd have one now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-74766691678211081572012-05-27T19:08:48.945-07:002012-05-27T19:08:48.945-07:00Don't forget to check if they were even talkin...Don't forget to check if they were even talking about the Earth. Maybe they were talking about UranusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-34791632469722801732012-05-27T14:36:46.907-07:002012-05-27T14:36:46.907-07:00There is a transcript of the session online. Dr. B...There is a <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/files/112811_transcript_energyoutlook1.pdf" rel="nofollow">transcript of the session online</a>. Dr. Birol does not mention 2050 in connection with 6 degrees C.climatehawk1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-20741195060940244022012-05-27T14:18:04.894-07:002012-05-27T14:18:04.894-07:00Well, I will try to do some more looking, but:
1)...Well, I will try to do some more looking, but:<br /><br />1) Romm published a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/" rel="nofollow">piece on January 4, 2012, citing the 11-degree figure</a>.<br /><br />2) Romm did not pass along the phrasing "6 degrees Celsius (by 2050)." It does not appear in the article you link to, which simply says "6 degrees Celsius." Nor does it appear in the January 4 article. It's in the Reuters article, but in parentheses as indicated. I'll hazard a guess that it was the reporter's interpretation.climatehawk1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-54000641965301975132012-05-27T14:09:26.791-07:002012-05-27T14:09:26.791-07:00By asking Birol maybe? It sounds like the reuters...By asking Birol maybe? It sounds like the reuters guy got something cross ways. Notice that JR did not himself use the 2050 date, but merely said that there could be a 6C rise.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-5854864423421316272012-05-27T13:46:32.596-07:002012-05-27T13:46:32.596-07:00Then I fault Romm for passing that figure on witho...Then I fault Romm for passing that figure on without questioning it, because it's absurd to think we are going to have a total of 6 C of warming by 2050. <br /><br />We've had about 0.8 C so far. So we'd need another 5.2 C in 38 years -- 1.4 C/decade. That's about 9 times the surface warming rate of the last 30 years, as measured by GISS.<br /><br />How can anyone take that seriously?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-9756371622301164582012-05-27T11:34:19.845-07:002012-05-27T11:34:19.845-07:00You're giving Romm credit for somebody else...You're giving Romm credit for somebody else's record:<br /><br /><br />"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet," Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters. <br /><br />http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/co2-iea-idUKL5E8GO6B520120524Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com